Questions about Mel's booklet "What the Bible Says..."

[Paulus]

Under MY SECOND PREMISE:

Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail
of suffering, bloodshed, and death.

Over the centuries people who misunderstood
or misinterpreted the Bible have
done terrible things. The Bible has been
misused to defend bloody crusades and
tragic inquisitions; to support slavery,
apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non-
Christian people of faith; to support Hitler’s Third Reich and the
Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn interracial
marriage; to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku
Klux Klan. Shakespeare said it this way: “Even the devil can cite
Scripture for his purpose.”

While there are many items in this comment to search out, let's go after this item: "...to condemn interracial
marriage,..."

Where and what are the verses that preach on the condemnation of interracial marriage?

[u-dog]

I'm guessing its the "sons of Ham" nonsense from the Noah narrative in Genesis but thats just a guess. Mel's point is that all of these hideous crimes against humanity have been defended by erroneous appeal to Scripture.

[BrentRichards]

Your where and what question is exactly the point ... all of these things have been defended by a misuse of Scripture ... for many of them, we can no longer even conceive of what Scriptures may have been pointed to, because they simply don't say what they were held to say ... the belief had to be brought to scripture in order to see it there.

In terms of interracial marriage, many of the same passages invoked to support slavery and racism apply ... viewing other races as subhuman or inherently evil certainly implies that one should not intermarry with "them."

More specifically, much was made of the frequent scriptural prohibitions against marrying foreigners (those of other races/nations): See for example, Deut. 7:3,4; Joshua 23:12,13; Nehemiah 13:25-27. Moses was criticized harshly by Miriam and Aaron for having a Cushite (Ethiopian) wife (though Miriam appears to have been punished for this).

Some even invoked Paul's prohibition against "unequal yoking" ... even though the topic there is clearly relationships between believers and unbelievers.

Do any of these passages "make sense" as prohibitions of interracial marriage? Of course not, which is precisely the point. If one ASSUMES interracial marriages are wrong, one could read that judgement INTO these passages, but unless you brought it there with you, it isn't there to be found.

Perhaps my "favorite" example was the church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo, whose scientific assertions about astronomy were "clearly" unbiblical. But most Christians today would have trouble even telling you what passages were pointed to in argument. It made perfect sense to them, because it was shaped by their assumptions.

We are just as human, and we tend to do the same, if we're not very careful.

[antonyh]

Here is a long Bible study on the topic. It goes through the verses that have been used against interracial marriage.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html

[Paulus]

Here is a long Bible study on the topic. It goes through the verses that have been used against interracial marriage.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html

Years ago, I had similar point of view that was supposed to come out of the book of Ezra, chapters 9 and 10; unfortunately, the person who had told me about this was no longer around for me to rebut her comments, because what was written in Ezra was not against the mixing of race. But that the Israelites should not marry outside their faith. The apostle Paul writes of this in 1st Corinthians 7, that the believer should not be unequally yoked to the unbeliever.

As for the so-called teachings that Adam and his descendants through Seth down to Christ were white, these teachings are mostly coming from the white supremacist groups and thinking ilk.

[keltic63]

Years ago, I had similar point of view that was supposed to come out of the book of Ezra, chapters 9 and 10; unfortunately, the person who had told me about this was no longer around for me to rebut her comments, because what was written in Ezra was not against the mixing of race. But that the Israelites should not marry outside their faith. The apostle Paul writes of this in 1st Corinthians 7, that the believer should not be unequally yoked to the unbeliever.

As for the so-called teachings that Adam and his descendants through Seth down to Christ were white, these teachings are mostly coming from the white supremacist groups and thinking ilk.


so are you saying that you now understand that in the past, Christians have used the Bible and MISINTERPRETATIONS of its verses to condemn interracial marriage? Mel did not say that the Bible condemns interracial marriage, but he did say (as you quoted) that Christians have interpreted some verses INCORRECTLY to arrive at that conclusion.

[Paulus]

so are you saying that you now understand that in the past, Christians have used the Bible and MISINTERPRETATIONS of its verses to condemn interracial marriage? Mel did not say that the Bible condemns interracial marriage, but he did say (as you quoted) that Christians have interpreted some verses INCORRECTLY to arrive at that conclusion.

No, I've known that some(quite a bunch) have used the Scriptures erroneously by taking verses out of context to further their desires. Stormfront, for one.

Mel did not say that the Bible condemns interracial marriage, but he did say (as you quoted) that Christians have interpreted some verses INCORRECTLY to arrive at that conclusion.
Only Christians?

[pnggrad79]

Well I think any religion can take any religious text out of context to justify or support their actions. (Extreme Islam:The Koran)

I am reading teacher in 6th grade and one of the things we teach our kids is to look at the context of the passage to get a clearer picture of what is going on. I caution them not to take one sentence and draw a conclusion from it. They have to look at all of it.

Fundamentalists for years have taken one sentence out of a passage and used it to slander and villify whole groups of people. If you go back and look at the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis, for instance, you see in Chapter 10, I think, that God extends grace to the Sodomites, then again in Chapter 13, when Moses strikes a deal with God for 10 good men, so the conclusion that God burned Sodom and Gomorrah for the throngs of homosexuals that threatened Lot and his angel guests, is wrong. God had simply grown weary of the times He had attempted to save them and when they rejected his messengers, He had had enough. At least that is how I see it. And the chapters may not be exact, but the point is still the same.

Fundamentalists like to hide behind the cloak of their assumption and prejudgments about people. It is comfortable Christianity and it has hurt and killed many people who thought they couldn't be loved by God.

God is bigger than our assumptions, and our attempts to explain him through our comfortable theology that we have incorrectly misconstrued.

Why can't we just let God be God and we submit to him rather than trying to fit a Big God into our little bitty boxes? :rolleyes:

[Paulus]

Well I think any religion can take any religious text out of context to justify or support their actions. (Extreme Islam:The Koran)

I am reading teacher in 6th grade and one of the things we teach our kids is to look at the context of the passage to get a clearer picture of what is going on. I caution them not to take one sentence and draw a conclusion from it. They have to look at all of it.

Fundamentalists for years have taken one sentence out of a passage and used it to slander and villify whole groups of people. If you go back and look at the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis, for instance, you see in Chapter 10, I think, that God extends grace to the Sodomites, then again in Chapter 13, when Moses strikes a deal with God for 10 good men, so the conclusion that God burned Sodom and Gomorrah for the throngs of homosexuals that threatened Lot and his angel guests, is wrong. God had simply grown weary of the times He had attempted to save them and when they rejected his messengers, He had had enough. At least that is how I see it. And the chapters may not be exact, but the point is still the same.

Fundamentalists like to hide behind the cloak of their assumption and prejudgments about people. It is comfortable Christianity and it has hurt and killed many people who thought they couldn't be loved by God.

God is bigger than our assumptions, and our attempts to explain him through our comfortable theology that we have incorrectly misconstrued.

Why can't we just let God be God and we submit to him rather than trying to fit a Big God into our little bitty boxes? :rolleyes:

Pnggrad79,

Hi,

#1 - This statement comes across "too cut & dried:"
Fundamentalists for years have taken one sentence out of a passage and used it to slander and villify whole groups of people.
It implies ALL.

A truer comment would have said, "Some..."


#2 - Genesis chapter 10 speaks of the nations of the earth after the Flood,
This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. The chapter tells of the Japhethites, the Hamites, & the Semites.


If you go back and look at the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis, for instance, you see in Chapter 10, I think, that God extends grace to the Sodomites...

Studying Genesis, nowhere does God extend grace to the Sodomites; matter-of-fact, one first hears about Sodom in Gen.13:13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.(TNIV)

#3 - "...then again in Chapter 13, when Moses strikes a deal with God for 10 good men, so the conclusion that God burned Sodom and Gomorrah for the throngs of homosexuals that threatened Lot and his angel guests, is wrong."

(a) Moses shows up in Exodus chapter 2.

(b) Strikes a deal with God???? Not hardly; read what is written in chapter 18:20-21, Abraham DOESN'T STRIKE A DEAL, he PLEADS for Sodom. Very great difference in meanings between those two words.
"20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Yes, Abraham asked the LORD, "If 10 righteous men are found, would the LORD spare Sodom?" GOD knew beforehand what the outcome would be, not even 5 people. But see verse 17 for the reason why the LORD talked with Abraham.

This may be easier, here's an online KJV (http://www.plainbible.com/) website.

#4 - After Lot takes the two men(God's angels really) home so that they can have a meal & a safe night's rest -- why would he do this, surely his neighbors are righteous moral folk, right? Read what it says in Gen. chapter 19.

#5 - God had simply grown weary of the times He had attempted to save them and when they rejected his messengers, He had had enough. At least that is how I see it. You're confusing GOD's angels with the Old Testament Prophets(again, two very different subjects).

GOD's angels weren't messengers, they were there for one thing only, and that was to retrieve Lot & his family(Lot's two sons-in-law didn't believe that they needed to leave). Once Lot, his wife, & their two daughters were clear of Sodom -- fire & brimstone fell from the sky. Lot's wife disobeyed what was said, "Don't look back," she did and became a pillar of salt.

Side comment -- read what is said in Jude verse 7.

"If the definition of a fundamentalist is one who rejects modernism, count me in. Today's 'church' is just cafeteria religion with more and more emphasis on being entertained, rather than living a holy life through Christ. It's a joke and a crime against heaven. That is my observation and conviction. I don't stand in anyone's way and go after them. There is no need. The Father will take care of apostasy, compromise and worldliness propagated in His name soon enough. If you feel those who cry out against what they see as corruption should stay silent, sorry, no such principle exists in the Bible. Does that mean Christian political activism is safe? Not that history can tell. So, yes, fundamentalists who have not the spirit of Christ can be dangerous human beings, even more so than humanists, history shows. But just believing the literal nature of biblical teachings, miracles, etc., is no threat to any society, save the one where people want to do their own thing without restraint. Which is what America has basically become. So fundamentalists are a threat to weakening standards and depravity in society. Is that a bad thing? Only if they try to force the will of those living lives they see as depraved."(Frigon) I agree with this man's words.

"Indeed, fundamentalism has been associated with brain-washed radicalism, which is neither reasonable, nor true, or certainly, only relative."(DY)Other "present" concept of "fundamentalism."
--------------------------------------------------------------
This is my take on the word, "fundamentalism;" I believe it refers to:
Adam & Eve = real people
Creation = Six days
Bible = True
Virgin birth
Physical resurrection of Jesus

If fundamentalism doesn't mean these five items now-a-days, what is current meaning of the word?

Pnggrad, normally I don't post this much but you gave me a bunch to work with. Hope this helps.

[u-dog]

Side comment -- read what is said in Jude verse 7.

Of the Dozen or more places in Scripture where the Story of S and G is dealt with, Jude 7 is the ONLY one that suggests that their sin had anything to do with sex. ALL OF THE OTHER places where scripture reflects on itself the sin is seen as injustice, inhospitality, and pride.

The Hebrew words in Jude that KJV translates as "strange flesh" are as likely to refer to human beings lusting after angelic beings as it is to men lusting after other men.

Given the testimony of Jesus and the prophets on this issue and in view of the fact that the angels are threatened NOT by 5 to 7 percent of the male population of S and G but rather by EVERY SINGLE MAN AND BOY IN TOWN I don't see any reason to think that the story of S and G has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality. The mostly heterosexual fathers, grandfathers, sons and grandsons of Sodom wanted to rape and humiliate some strangers in a way that was not all that unusual in the ancient world. Show me why I am mistaken in this interpretation?

[nmwolfboy]

I think it's an unfortunate practice to use a broad brush to paint any grouping of people...including Christian Fundamentalists. With that in mind, here's a Wikipedia article on Christian Fundamentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism) that provides some reasonably good background. Remember through, it's Wikipedia, so not necessarily accurate in all respects.

Pax :dove:
scott

[pnggrad79]

Paulus,
Sorry for the mix up in Scripture, I didn't have my Bible handy to look at it. I just don't for one second think that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality. I believe in a historical, cultural perspective to interpreting the Bible. Ezekiel 16:49-50 says that God destroyed Sodom because of their unwillingness to be hospitable to strangers, and they were overfed, and haughty. Nowhere does it say in that prophecy that God condemned Sodom for homosexuality. Again, in the New Testament, in Matthew 10:11-16, Jesus is cautioning his disciples that when they go into a city, if the people of that city do not respond kindly to them, it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city. The idea is God's invitation to a renewed relationship with Him is not something to be toyed with. A messenger of God is not there on a frivolous mission. He is a force to be reckoned with, or literally there will be hell to pay.

I think God ultimately wants to reconciled to humanity and that is the whole reason for Jesus life, and death. I don't think He cares who we sleep with. Love is never wrong. :)

[tdogg]

I've never been able to figure out where some people get that the Sodom and Gomorrah story was destroyed because of homosexuals. That has never made sense to me because that's not what the story is about. At least in any version I've read. Wonder what the original text truly says about this?

Anyone out there who believes the S & G was destroyed because of homosexuals? If so, what verse(s) do you back your belief up with? Just curious, as this story is a big part of anti-homosexual opinion (in my experience).

[pnggrad79]

TDogg-
When I was a religious Southern Baptist, we were always taught that the reason God destroyed S & G was because the "men" of Sodom all gathered at Lot's door, demanding that he turn his two guests over to them so they could have sex with them. Lot said that it was a detestable thing and that instead, (and I love this) he would give over his virgin daughter to the men to do with what they wished. (Hmm, wonder what that might have been?)
Since then I have come to look at it in a historical context and have learned that in those ancient times, when a stranger came to town, at least in Hebrew culture, they were supposed to take them in, give them a place to sleep and some food. These guys at Lot's door only wanted conquest. Since women were so well regarded back then (ahem, sarcasm intended) men often raped other men in conquest or to subjugate them because it was a shame to be treated like a woman.
That is my understanding at least. Hope it makes sense.:)

[Paulus]

Here is a long Bible study on the topic. It goes through the verses that have been used against interracial marriage.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html

Thank you for the link, Antonyh.

[Paulus]

Your where and what question is exactly the point ... all of these things have been defended by a misuse of Scripture ... for many of them, we can no longer even conceive of what Scriptures may have been pointed to, because they simply don't say what they were held to say ... the belief had to be brought to scripture in order to see it there.

In terms of interracial marriage, many of the same passages invoked to support slavery and racism apply ... viewing other races as subhuman or inherently evil certainly implies that one should not intermarry with "them."

More specifically, much was made of the frequent scriptural prohibitions against marrying foreigners (those of other races/nations): See for example, Deut. 7:3,4; Joshua 23:12,13; Nehemiah 13:25-27. Moses was criticized harshly by Miriam and Aaron for having a Cushite (Ethiopian) wife (though Miriam appears to have been punished for this).

Some even invoked Paul's prohibition against "unequal yoking" ... even though the topic there is clearly relationships between believers and unbelievers.

Do any of these passages "make sense" as prohibitions of interracial marriage? Of course not, which is precisely the point. If one ASSUMES interracial marriages are wrong, one could read that judgement INTO these passages, but unless you brought it there with you, it isn't there to be found.

Perhaps my "favorite" example was the church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo, whose scientific assertions about astronomy were "clearly" unbiblical. But most Christians today would have trouble even telling you what passages were pointed to in argument. It made perfect sense to them, because it was shaped by their assumptions.

We are just as human, and we tend to do the same, if we're not very careful.

Brent,

Good post.

In regards to...More specifically, much was made of the frequent scriptural prohibitions against marrying foreigners (those of other races/nations): See for example, Deut. 7:3,4; Joshua 23:12,13; Nehemiah 13:25-27.These people were unbelievers -- they would be snares to the Israelites.

Regarding...Moses was criticized harshly by Miriam and Aaron for having a Cushite (Ethiopian) wife (though Miriam appears to have been punished for this).Miriam & Aaron were jealous of Moses, they were just using Moses' second wife as an excuse. After being mentioned in the first verse of Numbers, Moses' 2nd wife is "forgotten" which proves that she was not the reason.

Good post.

ps. Considering the universe, we are kind of small... aren't we?

[Paulus]

I think it's an unfortunate practice to use a broad brush to paint any grouping of people...including Christian Fundamentalists. With that in mind, here's a Wikipedia article on Christian Fundamentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism) that provides some reasonably good background. Remember through, it's Wikipedia, so not necessarily accurate in all respects.

Pax :dove:
scott

You're right about Wiki, they're a bit "weak" at times(pun intended).

[Paulus]

TDogg-
When I was a religious Southern Baptist, we were always taught that the reason God destroyed S & G was because the "men" of Sodom all gathered at Lot's door, demanding that he turn his two guests over to them so they could have sex with them. Lot said that it was a detestable thing and that instead, (and I love this) he would give over his virgin daughter to the men to do with what they wished. (Hmm, wonder what that might have been?)
Since then I have come to look at it in a historical context and have learned that in those ancient times, when a stranger came to town, at least in Hebrew culture, they were supposed to take them in, give them a place to sleep and some food. These guys at Lot's door only wanted conquest. Since women were so well regarded back then (ahem, sarcasm intended) men often raped other men in conquest or to subjugate them because it was a shame to be treated like a woman.
That is my understanding at least. Hope it makes sense.:)

You're right, Lot really wasn't a great guy... was he?

Side note

One of Lot's descendants was King David.

[pnggrad79]

Well, wasn't Jesus technically a descendant of Lot then, too because if Lot was a descendant, then Jesus was, too? Again, I don't have my Bible in front of me to look it up.

Lot was kinda creepy, but case in point, that was the culture back then. Women were property, and to be used as baby factories. It was a woman's goal in life to have sons and not daughters. She was to be under the authority of some man, either her father, brothers, husbands or sons.

We simply cannot hold statutes back then as relevant today. I don't know many women who think of themselves as property anymore. Some may, but I don't know where that is a prevalent thing.

[tdogg]

That's the problem with taking the Bible literally. It is impossible to apply the Bible literally to our lives, in our day and time, in our culture. Impossible.

King David wasn't all that either folks. When I read the Old Testament, I get the feeling that a lot of it was writting to glorify and justify the savage living of those in charge at the time. The killing, the adultery (it was ok for men according to the glorification of David and Solomon and others), the demeaning of women. Much of the New Testament is about Paul's rules to live by. I believe that the Bible is a blessed and awesome guide for one's life, but only when taken with MUCH prayer and meditation, in order to apply it to one's life now.

I also believe that one can condense the book into a volume containing only Christ's words, and that would be sufficient. Very applicable, as it pertains to love and compassion and forgiveness, characteristics that aren't constrained by time and culture.

[u-dog]

I also believe that one can condense the book into a volume containing only Christ's words, and that would be sufficient. Very applicable, as it pertains to love and compassion and forgiveness, characteristics that aren't constrained by time and culture.

Except that, in order to understand what Jesus is saying and meaning you need to understand him in the context of his culture and religion. And THAT requires the Old Testament. While his love and compassion and forgiveness are not culturally constrained many of his parables, arguments, actions cannot be fully understood in their true radicalness if you don't get his history and culture.

[keltic63]

I also believe that one can condense the book into a volume containing only Christ's words, and that would be sufficient. Very applicable, as it pertains to love and compassion and forgiveness, characteristics that aren't constrained by time and culture.

Thomas Jefferson did just that: Jefferson Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/0807077143)

[Paulus]

Well, wasn't Jesus technically a descendant of Lot then, too because if Lot was a descendant, then Jesus was, too? Again, I don't have my Bible in front of me to look it up.

Lot was kinda creepy, but case in point, that was the culture back then. Women were property, and to be used as baby factories. It was a woman's goal in life to have sons and not daughters. She was to be under the authority of some man, either her father, brothers, husbands or sons.

We simply cannot hold statutes back then as relevant today. I don't know many women who think of themselves as property anymore. Some may, but I don't know where that is a prevalent thing.

Pnggrad,

Lot's grandson from his firstborn daughter was named Moab; many years later, a family of four went to Moab because of a famine in the land. The story is found in the book called "Ruth," who is the Moabitess who returns with Naomi. Very interesting story.

Second thing I wanted to pass onto you, actually comes from a man who lived from about 50 B.C. to 70 A.D., his name was Philo of Judea.

This written in the Hebrew Talmud.
The book where all the sayings & preachings of Rabbis are conserved overtime.

It says:.

"Be very careful if you make a woman cry, because God counts her tears. The woman came out of a man's rib. Not from his feet to be walked on. Not from his head to be superior, but from the side to be equal Under the arm to be protected and next to the heart to be loved." ~Philo of Judea


( "Pass this on to all exceptional women that you know..
and to men so they know the value of a woman.")

Someone else tacked the above directional note to it...

My older brothers(2) & I were taught the value of a woman by our parents, who learned from their parents.

Have a good week & a safe holiday.

[pnggrad79]

Paulus,
Thanks for taking a stand for women. I am a Christian lesbian married to a woman and I know the value of women. I also have two daughters and they are smart, witty, attractive, and valuable as young women. I hope and pray they marry someone who will see their value and worth as women and not treat them as objects or a means to an end.

[Paulus]

A stand... over the last 3 1/2 years while I was attending college classes, I would encourage all who came seeking help from me(I was a a library work-study). Met many International students too. I treated everybody the same... like I would want to be treated.

Figuratively speaking, did I ever walk on "thin ice" with those I talked to, not that I know of -- haven't got lectured yet.

Safe driving.

Paulus